Notes On The First Debate

 I did not indulge in any of the Dem debates. Instead, I watched clips on YouTube. I didn't really miss anything. I did however decide I was going to watch this Trump-Biden debate because I wanted to observe firsthand. What follows is what I would think a person who is not aligned with any party and who is undecided on a candidate. I believe these persons will be who will swing the election either way (assuming we don't have mass fraud, which is not a given). I will break this down into two parts: Appearance and Information. That is, How did the candidates come across if I were that hypothetical voter and then go into the [mis]information (talking points) was presented.

Appearances

As far as I'm concerned Joe Biden won the debate, hands down. I don't even think it was close. Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows I'm not a Biden fan so you should take this commentary seriously. Going into this "debate" Biden had been characterized in right-leaning media as in serious mental decline, who would fold under pressure from Trump and either go off on one of his characteristic gaffes or get angry and attack Trump in a "horse face..." manner. It was also assumed he'd get lost in his train of thought.

None of that happened. Whatever you think of Biden's actual policy positions, he did not show himself to be out of control of his faculties. That performance severely damaged the perception of the doddering old man just trying to make it to election day.  He might be an old man just trying to hang on, but he came off as in control of himself.

Trump on the other hand come off as someone who was off his meds and not able to control his mouth. There were a few times I said out loud that Trump should shut the F up. It was clear that his strategy was to try to get Biden angry and to get him to gaffe. That strategy failed. Seriously failed.  Any voter who is concerned about appearances and "acting presidential" will simply be turned off by that behavior. Believe me, there are a LOT of undecided voters out there for whom that is an important factor.

There are those saying that it was Trump vs Biden-Wallace. That may be true but that excuses nothing. It's been nearly 4 years (five if you include the campaign). That's like Obama complaining about lack of manufacturing jobs on Bush. At some point you accept you're on the hot seat.

Trump had better hope that there are more debates where he can change his behavior because if he continues to act like that on camera, he's losing the election (which he may be doing anyway).

So yes, Biden won because he rose above expectations. Don't send me hate mail over this.

Information

There were a few notable points in the "debate" that shows how much the leftist narrative has captured the mainstream media. Example was the "very fine people" lie that Chris Wallace trotted out without mentioning that the quote has been misrepresented by Biden (among others). We've already exposed that lie so we're not covering that again. 

Trump is an inarticulate person and a very bad debater. If he was a good debater he would have asked Mr. Wallace to point out where he included Nazis and White Supremacists in his "fine people" comment. His people should have a page on their website with the video clip and he should have referenced it. 

Also, he should have been able to challenge both Wallace and Biden as to whether persons who are opposed to destroying or removing artifacts for historical and educational reasons are bad people or are Nazis. And force Biden to declare large swaths of the American public as Nazis. He should have pointed out that he predicted that George Washington among others would be next and that such things HAVE happened. That would have played very well to undecided voters. 

The next piece of misinformation was the response to the Wuhan virus. Trump should have pointed out that the worst cases were in NYS where Gov Cuomo sent sick people into nursing homes which contributed to the largest death counts in the country and that CUOMO was rewarded with a speaking gig at the DNC convention.

He did mention the wall of democrats who called him a xenophobe for banning travel from China so that's good on him. I'm not sure that the message got across with all the cross-talk.

On the topic of masks, I've laid out plenty of evidence that they do not work (short of N95).  It is unfortunate that science has become so politicized that rational discussions cannot be had. Dr. Fauci said on 60 minutes that they don't work and then turned around and said they do. The Surgeon General admitted that they mislead the public on the matter in order to prevent a run on N95 masks.  There's a lot of blame to go around for the piss poor handling of the situation and it doesn't begin and end at Trump. 

The point about H1N1 by Trump got lost in the mix so I think a lot of people missed that. There were a lot of deaths from that virus. Early on Joe Biden had made comments about not taking planes and the like. Obama essentially told joe to get on message and STFU and he did. We did not shut down the economy or anything like that, and about 60k people died. Most importantly, after the deaths waned, like what is currently going on, testing revealed high levels of cases that panicked the experts but did not lead to the widespread fear-mongering that we have now. Again, I don't think this is known by much of the public (the media kept a lid on that) and so is unlikely to sway any undecided and unaffiliated voter who is not the kind to research these things.

"Best for Black Folks". Firstly, if I were some other [current] minority group in America I'd be annoyed at all the talk about African-Americans as if the rest of the minorities don't exist. That said, as a black person I'm annoyed that the discussion went straight to crime and prison. Look, most of us aren't involved in any crime whatsoever. Not at all. So personally I don't like the Black=crime thing. Yes, black people commit wildly disproportionate amounts of violent crime. But as far as I'm concerned I want to be talked to about economics and education. 

That said, I don't find the attack on Biden on the crime bill to be persuasive. The reason is that back then a lot of black leaders were talking the same way. Crack and the crime around it was REALLY BAD. Fact is that these laws saved a lot of black lives by getting the criminal element off the streets. if you were a black kid in the 80s, particularly male, you may well owe the fact that you're alive to the heavy legal tactics deployed.

The mention of Breonna Taylor was a tactic to smear Trump. I posted a round table discussion by lawyers (whom are left liberal-moderate) on the topic. Breonna was not some innocent victim of injustice. She was involved in the drug game and we know what can happen when you're involved in the drug game. It's unfortunate it happened but not going to bat for her.

Then we have the Climate Change thing. I've posted a number of things on the subject. The climate is always changing. Humans have an impact that we really cannot measure because we, humans, have been on the planet an extremely short period of time relative to the age of the earth. This isn't the space for a full on climate discussion but the Climate Complex is a huge money scheme that should be resisted. And mind you there is a difference between pollution and  so-called human caused climate change. I don't think any rational person would object to less pollution even if they question climate change policy.

Lastly I want to discuss the smearing of ordinary Americans engaging in self-defense and defense of others as Nazi's and White Supremacists. Over the past couple of months we have seen democratic "law enforcement" agents abuse their power and arrest and charge persons who have been demonstrably defending themselves against roving mobs of Anti-fa and Anti-fa aligned groups as well as criminals who see an opportunity. Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong and he is NOT a white supremacist. We all know when Wallace said Kenosha that he was smearing Kyle.  Kyle has a right to bear arms, as we all do. Kyle took it upon himself to defend the property of persons in Kenosha. Kyle was attacked. We have the video. He shot in self-defense. He is as far as I'm concerned a political prisoner.  Shame on Wallace for smearing Kyle.

It was telling that Wallace could not name a single "white supremacist" organization that have been involved in the violence anywhere in the US since May. Why? Because there are none. Right-leaning people who have come out with their weapons to defend property are not white supremacists and shame on Wallace for smearing such persons. The violence of the last months is a left-wing phenomenon that has been aided and abetted by the media and DNC members high and low. Left-wing goons have been beating on people since 2016. 

2016.

Anyone paying attention knows this. 

If Trump was a better debater he would have asked if David Dorn was a white supremacist when he was gunned down while defending a shop and died on a Facebook live stream.

So to close I want to re-iterate. Biden won the debates strictly in terms of appearance. He had a low bar to meet and it was more than met. This isn't an endorsement of his policy positions. If you think Trump won on that front because he "took it to Biden", then you're likely not undecided and already in the Trump camp. You're not deciding the election though and that's the point.

RoundTable Discussion Of Breonna Taylor Case

 This is possibly the best discussion of the Breonna Taylor case.

Taylor Indictments: Walker Defense Lawyer Speaks

 

There are two points here that I think need addressing.

First, the issue of the witness that said he heard the police announce themselves vs. the claims of neighbors that they did not hear police announce themselves (just banging on the door). I think this will be an important, if not THE important point in the civil trial. Particularly with the lower burden of proof ("more likely than not" vs. "reasonable doubt" for criminal cases).

With the reports saying that the police had no body-cams and thus far no other video evidence produced publicly, we have a case of 'they say" vs. "he said". I would think that Walker would likely win on this particular issue.

The second issue is his claim that Taylor's killing is not covered under Kentucky law for self-defense. I think that he is incorrect. Self-defense is based on what the person who is making the claim, perceives. If the police made a lawful entry to the Taylor residence and were met with gunfire, then they have an iron-clad claim of self-defense. That Taylor was caught in the crossfire between Walker and the police doesn't make for a homicide. Apparently, a grand jury came to the same conclusion.

We CAN and should argue about whether the entry was constitutional. Note I didn't say "legal". As I posted yesterday, I believe no-knock warrants are inherently unconstitutional. I believe Paul Ryan has put forth legislation to that effect and anyone serious about this issue should support him regardless of party affiliation or other ideological leanings.

The attorney here pre-supposes illegal entry. If it was an illegal entry then Taylor's killing WOULD be a homicide on the part of the police officers involved.

Lastly, I'm going to go back to what I said yesterday. Taylor's address was a known dropoff point for drugs. So this is not a story of 'wrong house" or even "wrong person".  Yesterday's reports said that Walker thought it was the ex-boyfriend (who was having the drugs delivered to that address) who was trying to break in. One would have to ask whether this ex was a regular "visitor" and why. 

There are a lot of ways that this could go sideways for Walker. 

The Taylor Indictments: Narrative Cracks

 When the Breonna Taylor case first came to public attention the story was that the police executed a no-knock warrant. Breonna's boyfriend heard the commotion and thinking that there was a break in in progress, pulled his gun and shot at the officers in self-defense. In the exchange of gunfire, Breonna was hit and died.

I've been against no-knock searches as a matter of principle. The constitution says that our persons and places (effects) cannot be searched nor siezed without a warrant based upon probable cause.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As I've pointed out, I'm a big stickler for constitutional things like "shall not be abridged" and "shall not be infringed" and the like. Here' like those statements, the Constitution is clear as day that our right to be secure in our PERSONS, HOUSES, papers and effects SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED.

So if you were bent out of shape about Taylor having police barge in her house unannounced but are fine with gun right infringements and speech and assembly infringements, you can have a whole entire row of seats and be quiet. 

So that was the story. Well now we have a grand jury indictment and things aren't what they were said to be.

The only charges brought by the grand jury were three counts of wanton endangerment against fired Officer Brett Hankison for shooting into Taylor’s neighbors’ homes during the raid on the night of March 13.

Now when I first read that I had to look twice because THAT was very odd. The entire uproar was about shooting Breonna. Why wasn't there anything related to her? Look, Grand Juries get to hear the case made by the state. Those being charged (or considered for charges) really have no say. So if the state had any kind of compelling case to make in direct response to Taylor's  killing, they would have done so. This meant that as far as the state was concerned the killing of Breonna was a justified homicide.

That's a pretty strong indicator that not everything we were told was..ahem...factual.

Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times by white officers who entered her home on a no-knock warrant during a narcotics investigation — although state Attorney General Daniel Cameron said Wednesday the investigation showed the officers did announce themselves before entering. [ my emphasis]

Well if the investigation shows it was an announced raid, then that changes a lot of things. Now it's entirely possible that when they announced themselves they were not heard. I have not seen any footage to know if that was the case. However; given the grand jury's indictment I would think there is evidence to that fact.

The warrant used to search her home was connected to a suspect who did not live there, and no drugs were found inside. 

I'm going to be honest here. I have heard things that say that Breonna at a bare minimum was an associate of a known drug dealer.  I never posted anything about that because I could not prove it. I still cannot prove it BUT the fact that they said it was in connection with a suspect "who did not live there" rather than the warrant used to search her home was for a DIFFERENT address, underscores that it is highly likely there was some shady business going on at the Taylor household.

From CNN:

Taylor's ex-boyfriend was the actual focus of a narcotics investigation that led officers to execute the warrant on her apartment, where no drugs were found.

Police said a man was shipping drugs to Taylor's apartment to avoid detection of a trafficking ring, according to a police affidavit for a search warrant, which was obtained by CNN.

The search warrant authorized police to search Taylor's apartment, two vehicles, and three people, including Taylor, and to seize, among other things, drugs and drug paraphernalia, money, safes, weapons, documents and computers. The warrant did not specifically connect Taylor to any alleged drug activity, and Taylor's family and their attorney have maintained that she was not involved in her ex-boyfriend's alleged drug trade.

The question will be what did Taylor know and when did she know it.  Unfortunately she's not here to say. As a side note THIS is why you steer clear of shady people. Even when they LEAVE (or you leave them) you can still have blow back.

Walker told investigators when he heard banging at the door his first thought was that it was Taylor's ex-boyfriend. He was concerned there might be trouble, so he grabbed his gun.

As Walker and Taylor made their way down a hallway toward the front door, Walker said, the door flew off its hinges.

"So I just let off one shot," he said. "I still can't see who it is or anything."

Cameron said Wednesday the officers both knocked and announced their presence at the apartment -- an account he insisted was corroborated by a witness near Taylor's apartment. 

I  hope for Walker's sake that he hasn't been caught in a lie. 'Cause if the witness can convince a jury that the police announced themselves and the defense attorney ties that with Walker's claim that they asked who it was and heard no response, it's called an acquittal.  Get used to it.

This indictment should also be kept in mind in regards to the Chauvin case. If he shows he followed police policy, he cannot be held liable for Floyd's death.

Colleges As Open Air Prisons

 Shame.

 

 Shame.

The Scientists Were Scared

Nobel Prize for Science winner Professor Levitt of Stanford
- one of the few who called this thing correctly back in February
- with a population fatality rate of 0.04 to 0.05%, largely regardless of lockdown
Now calls it again - on how science has let us all down dreadfully: pic.twitter.com/LrUA7t4rhv

— Ivor Cummins (@FatEmperor) June 29, 2020

 

A great summary of the epic fail of "scientists" who have shown themselves to actually be political activists seeking power. I've been told that I was illiterate when pointing out differences between March-May and June-Sept. in terms of cases and deaths. Been told to "keep my opinion to myself" by people who call themselves "scientists" who should know that challenging hypothesis IS how science is done.

I've had actual Medical doctors scoff when I've asked about the Vit. D levels of their patients, even though it's been long known that vit D deficiency is a factor in poor Covid outcomes.

The sad thing is that few if any of these people will be held to account.

The Obligatory Ginsberg Post

 Why a Ginsberg post and not a "Harris administration" post? Because the Harris administration was a foregone conclusion. I had already informed the readership that a Biden vote is a whoever Biden (well, his people) picked as VP.  So none of this surprises those paying attention.

So now we have the passing of Ginsberg. I've written not a few pieces on the very bad decisions falling out of SCOTUS including ludicrous dissents. That said, I do agree with some commentators that a balanced court is most desirable. However we did not have a balanced court before yesterday's news and we do not have one now. We have had decisions in which the plain reading of a law has been completely ignored. We have had decisions where the court usurped in whole the power of the legislature. We have had decisions where the court intruded on the clear power of the executive because they didn't like something Trump said. We have had a court that has refused to address issues of the second amendment where clear infringements are being made by various states. SCOTUS is broken and it is a reflection on the wider government.  But back to Ginsberg.

Ginsberg was clearly at a stage where she should have relinquished her seat before Trump was elected. She should have been replaced during Obama's first term. The failure to do so is a huge mistake of that administration. But Democrats, like Republicans before them couldn't imagine not losing elections due to some fantasy about being on the "right side of history" and having misjudged their demographic advantage (which is coming without a doubt). So rather than put extreme but private pressure on Ginsberg to resign so they could put in a younger and healthier justice who would sit for the next 20 odd years, they let 8 years pass. In addition Democrats killed of filibustering of SCOTUS appointments. 

Stupid stupid, stupid. Again, because they thought they would hold the reigns for power for ever and ever. Amen.  That turned out to be another fatal mistake.

Normally, I would agree with those who say that we should wait until after the election. Normally. However; Democrats have been totally corrupt in the past 5 years. From the Dirty Dossier (the actual collusion). The illegal spaying on a campaign using government agencies and agents. The corruption of local courts. The misuse of police powers to allow mass rioting while prosecuting those defending their lives and property. No. No quarter should be given now. As Dan Bongino put it, these are the new rules. 

There's a list of candidates and they should be put forth Monday morning. Democrats said filibuster was a relic of Americas racist past. So fine, new rules, no filibuster.  Thems the new rules.

Preferably the candidate should be a non-Jew. Non Catholic and non Ivy League. I say this because these three classifications are over represented on the court relative to the population at large.  43% of the US claim a protestant religion whereas over half of the court is Catholic (22% of US pop is Catholic). Until Ginsberg's passing there were 3 Jews on the high court. Jews make up 2% of the US population.

Most importantly, any candidate should have the understanding of what "shall not be infringed" and "Shall not be abridged" means. They should understand that such constitutional restraints fall through to the lowest and most local government body in America. That includes every agency from the Fed down to the little town in the middle of nowhere. That candidate should understand that the "equal protection" guarantee of the 14th amendment does not have an exception for people designated non-POC.

This is not a left-right issue. If a judge cannot uphold the constitution regardless of whether he or she is sympathetic to the case or not, then they are not qualified. Period.

It's too bad this situation has to be as stressful as it will be (people already threatening riots) but that's what happens when people refuse to accept the results of a legitimate election and show their asses for four years.

"Allow"?

Yes, I'm going to reference The Matrix: Reloaded again. 

In that movie, which I think is the best of the series, The Merovigian has a discussion with The Trio discussing the finer points of power. He points out that those in power give the people the illusion of choice when they are in fact not in control. In other words, those with power can and do limit the choices of the powerless. Neo, and by extension all the human rebels are a threat to power because they explicitly reject the choices given to them by those in power.

When those in power identify those who reject the [false] choices given to them, the power structure deploys its enforcers to eliminate the threat. In The Matrix, Neo is a particular threat because not only does he  reject the choices assigned to him but he also has the power ability to impose power himself.

This brings us to the current COVID situation. We have seen the state wield power in ways unimaginable to the founders much less the population back say even 30 years ago. Governors with dictatorial powers gifted to them by "emergency power legislation" passed by gullible and short sighted legislatures. Where the state executive can decide who's job is "essential" and who is not. Where you can and cannot go and what you must put on your body in public settings and who and how many people can be in your private property. Even barring the public from entering buildings while in possession of their own water bottles. Yes, this happened to me on Wed.

We were told "15 days to flatten the curve". That was the Big Lie. We, the public went along with this because generally we're good people. We don't want to see overrun hospitals. We are 6 months into "15 days". Clearly we have been had. Now we are being told that we cannot go "back to normal" until or unless there is a vaccine. They've just declared that. Nobody asked us, we the people about that. Many people have signed onto this "no back to normal unless there is a vaccine" proposition without question. Like those plugged into the Matrix.

Why has this "no back to normal" thing been  put in place? Well we have an example from the UK

The plan then states that there would be “full rollout” in early 2021 to 10 million tests a day, to “enable people to return to and maintain normal life.” At this stage, weekly testing would be made available progressively to the whole population to allow people to go to high risk events by using a “digital passport” to show they have tested negative for the virus.

"Allow"?

 This thing of governments "allowing" people to do things the government has no business having a say in  should bother the majority of people. The UK is a proto police state anyway (along with Australia) but don't think such thinking is not going on in the US. A lot of governors are on this "allow" ship. 

The documents show that there have been discussions over how to incentivise people to be tested. They point to enforcing testing “via a sanction-based model” or through “offering individuals opportunities/access from being tested,” such as being able to attend events.

"sanction based model". 'being able to attend events".

In china we already have the case where workers are not allowed to go to work without government permissions (via one of these "passports" on their phones). 

So governments are going all in on the fear narrative. I've seen people literally cower in fear when passed by someone without a mask on. People who quickly and haphazardly put on masks when someone who is without a mask passed them, outdoors at over 20 feet away.  People *still* driving in their personal cars (not Uber or taxis) by themselves with masks on.  The level of  paranoia is high in the public.

Just what is needed to enable the "allow" mentality to take hold.

More On Vietnam

 So a few days ago I posted about Vietnam and the huge pitfalls of making grand predictions and proclamations. I also posted recently that masks are not as effective as is being reported and that there is a likely alternative explanation to the low rates of Wuhan cases in south and east Asian countries.

One of the known co-morbid factors for Wuhan is obesity. This is because fat has a high ACE-2 receptor that the virus uses to attach and enter cells. Secondly, obese people are usually inflamed, which is also a co-morbid factor. Also obese people have a far lower max aerobic capacity than fit people. So when the virus hits and they are sent home (to see what happens) their aerobic capacity becomes maxed out and their blood O2 capacity drops and they end up in the hospital and on a vent (with a 50% or less chance of recovery).

Which brings us to Vietnam. I was watching Ivor Cummings rebuttal video

And at time index 32:22 he shows the curves for Vietnam. You see that Vietnam has very low cases and deaths.  Ivor points out something: The have low obesity. So I went and looked it up

Only 1 percent of Vietnamese adults are obese.

A study unveiled on Monday has found that more than one in 10 people worldwide are now obese and 2.2 billion are believed to be overweight, fueling a global health crisis that claims millions of lives every year.

The lowest rates of adult obesity were in Bangladesh and Vietnam, both at 1 percent.

Vietnam had a total of 8.1 million overweight or obese adults, of which 46 percent were male, according to the data collected by the study...

The rate of Vietnamese children aged 2 to 19 with obesity stood at 6.8 percent, while the figure was 28.5 percent in the U.S. and 25 percent in Australia.

 

Well isn't that interesting.  So in terms of one of the leading factors in Wuhan  case severity is 4X more prevalent in the US than in Vietnam. 

A chart available on Wikipedia (!)  we find Vietnam at the bottom of the list a 2%. Also we find South Korea, another country pointed to as "proof" that masks work down at 4.7%. The US is near the top at 36% 

So just wanted to show that you have to look at many factors in why some populations do "worse" or "better" with this virus. And remember this isn't a competition. No one is "winning" or "losing" at fighting the virus.

Hating On The Formerly Not Rich

 A few days ago I saw this piece in the NY Post about how hard it is to be rich.

Yes, the jokes write themselves with such a claim. but that's not really why I thought the piece was interesting. The interesting part was the stats on who is rich:

She said newly rich individuals like herself are relatively common, citing a US Trust study in which 77% of wealthy respondents said they grew up poor and also a 2017 Fidelity study that found 86% of wealth is self-made.

" 77% of wealthy respondent said they grew up poor" and "86% of wealth is self-made".

 A lot of Communists and Socialists in America who are ensconced in  the media, educational institutions and government like to talk ill of the wealthy. They are surprised when a large proportion of these wealthy don't respond very well to that talk, because they don't realize that most of them were previously poor who worked their butts off, saved rather than spent, invested rather than spent, went without rather than spend with an eye on the long game, to get where they are. They took chances, they stayed up and learned new things while others slept and partied. And then some ignoramus wants to tell them about their "privilege" like it wasn't in fact earned.

Too many people think success (in anything) just shows up. Now a days too few people are willing to tell these people which bridge they can jump off of. Some because they are politically disposed to foment this kind of envy and resentment for their own ends.

Historical Artifacts Are Racist

Racist skulls

 

I am one of those "very fine people" who would have attended the Charlottesville protest against removing the statue. No, I'm not white or a "white supremacist". I am simply against the destruction of historical artifacts, including statues because I don't believe in re-writing history in order to cover over the parts that we [now] don't care for. I AM for adding new statues and whatnot to fill out the stories that the current statues (and whatever)  represent. Also, since I know that the demands never stop, I knew that eventually other things would be demanded and the slope is indeed very slippery and is steeper than a Tour de France "beyond category" climb.

Of course we saw that the demands to remove shit went beyond statues and a whole lot of things have been put on the table. Since liberal whites have no sense of self-respect, and are scared to death of being called 'racist" they are unable to say "no" to the mob, they capitulate at all times. 

So we come to the topic at hand. From CNN (See I told you I read across the spectrum):

Staff have been removing human remains from its collection of more than 500,000 artifacts, following a three-year review of displays and programming "from an ethical perspective." Overall, 120 objects containing human remains were removed from being on view, plus an additional 71 non-biological objects which were in the same displays, the museum told CNN Tuesday.

The museum said in a statement Monday that the changes were motivated by a desire to "deeply engage with its colonial legacy."

 So removing historical artifacts that help us to understand the past with, you know, actual evidence, needs to be removed to "engage with it's colonial legacy".  I see. Remove evidence to "engage". Like, let's not use evidence in court in order to prove the case.

Among the artifacts are the Shuar Tsanta -- or shrunken heads -- made by the Shuar and Achuar people of Ecuador and South America.

Formed from human, sloth and monkey heads, they were much sought after and collectors would pay one gun per head, "leading to a steep increase in violent warfare locally at the height of the 19th and 20th century collecting," the museum said. 

Interesting. So we could see what drove colonial warfare among native Americans.  Similar to what happened in Africa, where the slave trade included selling people for Cowry shells. 

Much of the museum's collection is "closely tied to British imperial expansion and the colonial mandate to collect and classify objects from the world over," the museum said, with many of the historic labels on the artifacts featuring "racist and derogatory language, commonly used at the time."

 

OK. We're grown up people. We'll note the language, note the era in which they were said and move on. But also, I've noticed that people in that age were quite frank about the behaviors of people unlike today where you can't call a thing by it's true name.

The heads, as well as other human remains including Naga trophy heads and the mummy of an Egyptian child, have now been moved to storage.

 

 Strong Black Kings felled by "racist" artifacts.

Laura van Broekhoven, director of the museum, said in a statement: "Our audience research has shown that visitors often saw the museum's displays of human remains as a testament to other cultures being 'savage', 'primitive' or 'gruesome.'

 Ok. Question for the "audience"? Would any of you kill people and "shrink" their heads for a gun? If not, you too a racist? No?

"Rather than enabling our visitors to reach a deeper understanding of each other's ways of being, the displays reinforced racist and stereotypical thinking that goes against the museum's values today."

Stereotypical because we have evidence that they did these things and, well, artifacts are racist. Don't want those short brown people to have inferiority complexes. Say what are the "museum values today"?  I would think that the point of the artifacts and displays was to inform the visitors of the  values those people had back then, whether we agree with them or not.  

No, It's Not The Masks

 And so the miss-information in regards to masks continue unabated. Let's look at some data that demonstrates this.

Argentina mandated public mask wearing on April 14th. Let's assume that many persons in Argentina started wearing masks before then. 

What happened in Argentina?

Cases went up and continue to go up. Month after month after month. If masks "work" then case levels should have either flat lined very early in May or driven the case numbers towards zero.  Neither happened.

And of course deaths trail cases in ANY first wave. 

So if masks don't work, why do they seem to work in South Korea, etc. ? I suggest to you that there are other factors at play. Firstly since these SARS viruses appear to originate in that part of Asia, it is likelihood that these Asian populations have a degree of immunity to them and thus are not getting the same cases. Secondly, they are probably using treatments that have been politicized in western countries.

The first issue is something that should not be discounted because it bodes ill for the future of lock down and mask countries outside of Asia. History tells us that when Europeans came into contact with Native Americans, that diseases played a large role in the decimation of the native population. Why? The native populations had never had contact with these diseases. They were truly novel. So whereas Europeans would have low mortality from these diseases, they generally had relatively mild reactions, IF they got sick at all.  So we have historical precedence that populations that have regularly exposed to certain viruses generally fare better than those who have no exposure.

The countries and states with lockdowns are trying to make themselves like Native Americans. 

So back to Argentina. Let's look at Sweden's graphs.

No lock downs. No mask mandates. Their case curve in the March through June time period looks just like Argentina's. If masks and lock downs "work" then Argentina should look different.

And here we have Sweden's deaths. Now their death rates spiked far faster than Argentina but as you can see, as of mid July, they were done with the pandemic. Note that the end of the pandemic is not "no deaths" it's statistically negligible deaths (relative to population and expected mortality). 

Note that the Swedish authorities did not panic or induce panic in their populations even in the face of skyrocketing deaths like as happened in places like Australia and the US. That's what leadership is supposed to do. 

So to recap. If "masks work" then you have to explain why Argentina, which introduced mandatory masks way ahead of their case and death growths, had those growths.  Argentina also had lock downs from March 20. So it's on the mask and lock down people to explain why these things did not work in Argentina.

Stop Making Grand Predictions and Proclamations

 Two months ago on YouTube:

Today:

That 35 is deaths. 

Look, that's not a lot but as a percentage of cases it's 3% case fatality rate (CFR) which is actually quite high. There are a lot of reasons why Vietnam and other countries in the region aren't seeing huge cases (no it's not masks). The point here is that a lot of people (most calling themselves experts) are making grand predictions and proclamations usually to scare the shit out of the public. You need to be very skeptical of these proclamations, particularly those coming from those with clear political interests.

So You're Saying Black Neighborhoods are Crime Ridden and Poor Financial Investments?

 In what I can only call a massive self-own by former McDonalds franchise owners, a lawsuit against McDonalds  for discrimination does everything it can to verify stereotypes of black neighborhoods.

In the mid-1980s, Charles Griffis, a Los-Angeles-based, Black McDonald's franchise owner made national headlines, when he sued McDonald's claiming that the fast food giant systematically kept Black people from buying stores in white neighborhoods (via The New York Times).

 

So let's make sure we're following. Black franchisees were kept from buying stores in white neighborhoods. This kept them from:

achieve the same level of economic success as their peers,"

OK then. So stores in "non-white" neighborhoods were less successful financially. So fast forward to 2020:

Specifically, the 51-page lawsuit brought against McDonald's argues that, based on the color of the plaintiffs' skin, the company "steered" them with "misleading financial information" and otherwise pressured them into purchasing "older and underperforming store locations" in "depressed, crime-ridden neighborhoods" that often "had been routinely rejected by white franchisees."

So stores that white franchisees rejected, presumably in white neighborhoods, like the 1980's suit, were economically "depressed" and "crime ridden".  So these black franchisees didn't want to do business in bad communities any more than white franchisees wanted to. Black Burgers Matter man!

. In fact, their average annual sales were $700,000 less than the McDonald's reported national franchise average.

So apparently, "depressed" and "crime-ridden" places are economic sink holes. I have been told that it's racism and white supremacy . The people have money, The Man just keeps them from spending it. No, sorry, The Man has a super power that makes non-white  (per original suit) people commit crimes at a rate that makes where they live "crime ridden".

I dunno. Maybe McDonalds should get some Koreans to open up shops. They seem to be willing to open up shop in every 'hood.

"Vitamin D deficiency raises COVID-19 infection risk"

Found this article interesting due to it's implications for black folks in northern hemisphere countries.

"Vitamin D deficiency increases a person's risk for catching COVID-19 by 77% compared to those with sufficient levels of the nutrient, a study published Thursday by JAMA Network Open found.

Since African-Americans living in northern climes tend to have vit D deficiency, this will partially explain the relatively high mortality of black folks in both the US and UK.

"There are some dietary sources of vitamin D, including fatty fishes such as salmon, eggs, mushrooms and fortified foods, including most milk and dairy products, but it is not easy to get the levels one would get from supplements from these dietary sources alone," Meltzer said.

"Regular exposure to sunlight can [also] raise vitamin D levels," he said.

Actually, sunlight derived Vit D is the best Vit D (actually a hormone) and should be your primary go to. The side reason is that being outdoors is conducive to exercise which would address the other issues such as obesity.

Original Paper: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2770157?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=090320

You Think It's a "Conspiracy Theory"

 

Just watch.